Opinion: Vancouver needs a ward system to give neighbourhoods a voice

This opinion article was written for Daily Hive Urbanized by Penny Gurstein, professor emerita at the School of Community and Regional Planning and founding director of the Housing Research Collaborative at the University of British Columbia.

Gurstein says she is bewildered by Vancouver’s upcoming municipal election. Seven parties are running, including three formed for this election, alongside independent slates for mayor, Vancouver City Council, the Park Board and the School Board. That leaves voters with 130 candidates to consider. She asks how people can responsibly assess so many candidates and says party websites offer few significant policy directions or details about candidates’ positions despite hours of searching. In her view, parties want to win and are willing to tell voters what they want to hear. The party-based at-large system is so overwhelming that it becomes a barrier to democratic participation, she argues, and many people simply do not vote.

Candidate debates should inform voters but rarely do, Gurstein says. She also criticizes the majority party on council for choosing which debates its candidates attend in this election, noting that the incumbent mayor rarely appears. When a party wins a council majority, she says, it can become beholden only to those who elected it. She argues this has led to misguided policies without proper consultation and consideration. The provincial government has now stepped in to direct many municipal policies, further distancing the public from decision-making.

Gurstein says Vancouver’s municipal governance is not working. She argues the at-large system enables incumbent-heavy parties to make decisions from the top down, leaving large parts of the population disenfranchised and without a voice. All major Canadian cities have a ward system except Vancouver, she says, and it is time for a change.

Under a ward system, councillors are elected from defined neighbourhoods. Gurstein says fewer candidates would run in each ward, making them easier for voters to get to know and producing a simpler ballot. She also argues candidates could compete in local campaigns without massive funding or city-wide name recognition, potentially opening the race to more independents. Campaign financing has become a significant factor in winning elections, she says, and parties backed by wealthy donors are more likely to run prominent campaigns.

Once elected, ward councillors would be accountable to their own communities, which Gurstein says could reduce neglect of particular neighbourhoods’ needs. Residents would know which council member represents their area and have a clearer person to approach with concerns. She adds that council decisions would benefit from hearing the diverse interests of different wards.

Gurstein acknowledges potential drawbacks: a councillor elected in one ward may lack a city-wide perspective, competing local priorities could complicate decisions, and a ward system could lead to higher government spending. But she says these issues also occur under the current at-large system, which she argues favours special-interest groups and is no more accountable to the city-wide electorate.

She says Vancouver followed a different path in the 1970s, when local area planning marked a shift from top-down urban renewal towards resident-led, participatory planning. The change was driven largely by a backlash against the destruction of heritage neighbourhoods such as Strathcona and proposed freeway projects, as well as pressure to increase density in neighbourhoods such as Kitsilano. Gurstein says community activism grew during that period, and City Council worked well with city planners and heeded their advice.

Gurstein describes the current era as a return to the worst kind of top-down planning: decisions led by politicians with, in her words, a shockingly low level of civic understanding, who are not listening to planners or the citizens who elected them. She calls for residents to reclaim their neighbourhoods and city. Genuine participation, she says, requires public input to inform and influence decisions and build trust. She argues that current participation is not meaningful: decisions have already been made, public input is ignored, and consultation has become a requirement with no intention of incorporating public values. Residents with justifiable concerns about how questionable decisions could affect their communities are too often unfairly labelled “NIMBYs,” she says.

Since Vancouver does not have a ward system, Gurstein says residents should strengthen existing neighbourhood associations and demand accountability from elected officials. For this civic election, she urges voters to ask candidates what knowledge and skills they would bring to council decisions, what their priorities are, how they would work with diverse communities, how they would listen to residents and use what they hear, and how they would make decisions.

She says voters should also determine whether candidates and their parties understand the responsibilities and limits of municipal government. At a minimum, they should have ideas for building a thriving city and addressing budgets, affordable housing, infrastructure and community services, as well as engaging with constituents. Candidates should recognize that their role is to address urban issues within their power to resolve; complex geopolitical issues are beyond their purview.

Creating a city for all residents requires rethinking the relationship people have with their neighbourhoods and city, and what they can do individually and collectively to develop genuine civic discourse, Gurstein says. A ward system or a hybrid ward system would be a step in the right direction.